what we're doing in the middle east. the good news in the middle east and good news from the region can sometimes seem in sort supply is that hamas and the israeli government reached a cease-fire agreement to stop the violence between the two that left six israelis and 168 palestinians dead in the course of a week. upon anonsment of the cease-fire, gazans streamed out into the streets to celebrate. one poll showed that 31% of israelis approved of the cease-fire, while 49% were opposed. though hamas paid a heavy price during the bombing, the destruction of main government buildings, the death of the military commander, as well as according to estimates, over 50 other fighters and an unknown amount of munitions destroy in the bombings, it was able to point to the cease-fire as a concrete victory. the text of the agreement reads in part, israel should stop all hostilities in the gaza strip land sea and air. no more operations like the one that killed jabari and israel is

to commence quote opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the cease-fire. that is widely seen as a commitment to loosen the restrictions israeli has placed on all movements of people and goods in and out of gaza. if it holds, and that's a big if, it will represent a net benefit to the estimated 1.7 million people living in the gaza strip. for example, israel has already reportedly eased restrictions on fishermen in the waters around gaza, allowing them to go out twice as far as they could before the hostilities. human rights organizations have been calling for easing of the restrictions since the siege of gaza was initiated in 2006. and after international pressure in 2007 and 2010, reforms were made. after firing roughly 1500

rockets at israel at civilian centers and killing six people, hamas can turn around credibly claim their military tactics worked. that they brought about a change in israeli policy. this isn't the first time that hamas has emerged from a violent confrontation with israel with a concrete policy victory in 2006, hamas kidnapped israeli soldier and held him for five years before the netanyahu government secured his release in exchange for 1,027 palestinian prisoners. real politic requires dialogue with hamas and even negotiations with them when it's called for. but it also requires the same with respect to the body that represents palestinians in the occupied west bank, the palestinian authority. the posture of the israeli government towards the government of mahmoud abbas, a posture either endorsed or tolerated by our own government makes for an extremely disquieting contrast. now as head of the palestinian authority, mahmoud abbas has

renounced violence, even used security forces to go after militants. he accepts and are recognizes israel and its right to exist. he's gone so far in recent interviews to admit that palestinian was concede their right to return to the land they or their families held before 1948 inside what is now israel in return for this, he has seen basically nothing. except for the continued settlement growth. when aboss took over p.a., there are 350,000 settlers in the west bank. assume that hamas targets israeli civilians not solely because of some cult of death, but that it adopts this as a tactic to achieve certain aims. the idea that terrorism is a tactic adopted by certain groups at times was articulated by a young state senator back at a book event in 2004. >> ultimately terrorism is a

tactic. it's not, we're not fighting terrorists, we're fighting people who engage in terrorism. but have a whole host of rationales, and excuses for why they do this. and to the extent that we can change the sense of opportunity in many of these countries, we can change the manner in which we function in these countries and more positive proactive ways, then we're not going to eliminate terrorism entirely. but we're going to be able to make more of a dent than if all we're resorting to is military firepower. >> though you're unlikely to hear the current incarnation of president obama articulate this point of view, it's sound analysis. what message is the israeli government and u.s. government that supports it sending when it makes choices that result in hamas being able to point to

their victories and leaves president mahmoud abbas totally impotent. here's the lesson, as far as i can tell, if you recognize israel if you're committed to nonviolence you'll get roled, marginalized, undercut and left looking like a loser. if you fire rockets into the heart of israel, kidnap their soldiers, they'll negotiate and adjust their policies. everyone i've talked to on the palestinian side sees this disparity. none other than hamas political leader explicitly cited abbas's sorry situation in an interview on wednesday. >> translator: mahmoud abbas gave this opportunity to israel and the international community. what did they do? they made him fail, they let him down. >> in allowing this to continue, in refusing to pressure the israeli government to take concrete steps towards peace in the west bank, they're turning a blind eye while unarmed

protesters are imprisoned, tear gassed and shot and killed by soldiers, away from the eyes of the u.s. cameras, we're creating the conditions in which terrorism, the great evil we have pledged ourselves to vanquish, brings strategic benefits, while the path of nonviolence leads to a dead end what a sorry legacy for everyone involved in helping this come to pass. i want to bring in congressman steve cohen, democrat of tennessee. ka treata. and a senior fellow at the american task force on palestine. which advocates for a two-state solution and heather hurlburt, former member of the clinton state department foreign policy planning team. now executive director of the national security network this is my take-away from the set of incentives that have been created in the region. hussein, i'm curious, as someone who is a very outspoken advocate for two-state solution, if this is how you see things as well.

i think to some extent -- >> feel free to disagree. >> i'll tell you where i did disagree minorly. i think overall your analysis is correct. the incentive structure that's been created does certainly encourage palestinians to think that negotiations, dipsy, cooperations with israel is a dead end and all that the p.a. has to show is not being able to pay the salaries of public employees in west bank and gaza, except from two months back. and israeli settlement activity continues in all of that. they have little to show for their general approach of trying to reach a negotiated agreement. i'm not sure that hamas has achieved much. >> that's a good point. >> they claim they do. we should distinguish those two. >> i want to say the agreements with israel regarding the easing of the blockade and with egypt, are very vague. they're being negotiated today. i mean they're an agreement to,

to negotiate things about them. which are continuing today in cairo. they may be temporary, they may be very, very limited, and they may never materialize at all what hamas has gained is first of all a certain diplomatic breakthrough. the amir of qatar went there before this happened. while it was going on, the prime minister of egypt went there the foreign minister of durky and foreign minister of tunisia went there. the prime minister of turkey may go. what hamas has been able to do is bring -- >> break out of its diplomatic cage a little bit. that's the benefit. the other thing is that this is a benefit to the people, the hamas factions in gaza who are fighting an internal power struggle with the external leadership that used to be based in damascus and is now disbursed all over the world. i think for different factions in hamas they've achieved things politically for themselves. the people of gaza may be in a sense of euphoria.

there's going to be hangover when the dust settles when they bury the dead and count the costs, there ought to be as there was after cass led in 2008-2009, a clear contrast with a much better situation in the west bank. but today there isn't one. and that's the tragedy. and that means that hamas might be able to spin this into a long-term political benefit for themselves. >> the inverse to the argument i just made is would you rather be living in gaza or the west bank. >> it would be the west bank without question. >> that's my point. >> that's not the question. that's being asked, okay. because everyone is living under occupation. the question the palestinians are being posed is would you rather rot slowly under a kind of collaborative capitulation in the west bank where you troo i to cooperate and get nothing for it. or would you rather go down in a blaze of glory for god and country, with all. with under the rocket's red glare. people faced with a choice like

that will generally speaking prefer the second. they would rather go down in a blaze of glory. what they need is to be provided a third alternative which is -- >> progress towards freedom, independence and improving quality of life through negotiations by diplomacy. we've got a u.n. bid coming up. how israel and the united states and the rest of the world react to that will be a huge role of how this plays out. >> congressman i'm curious from your perch in the united states house of representatives, how you observed these observed the violence in gaza and the administration's very for theright and clear support for the israeli government taking steps to in their words defend themselves. >> i've been to israel twice as a congressperson, overy differet in who you met. i think that one think about is long-time ago, eli weisel

explained president reagan go to bitberg. he said i would look at the congo and afghanistan and i looked at syria, despair, dispair can never be the answer, you always have to have hope. we still have to have hope. and the problem in the middle east does appear to be despair. i think the problem is the president has to try to bring about some type of accord. is that netanyahu suffers from the same problem that romney did. they see the world only from their perspective. and it's from their view and they don't see the great earth world. the greater world being what's the numbers and the population and the future. they're not prepared for it they're hunkered down. and israel can't continue to be hunkered down and survive because they're going to be outnumbered by -- >> they've been outnumbered for a long time and there's a lot of fear that the tumult they bring is creating a greater danger. >> iron dome was beautiful. that was president obama and the

united states helped fund the iron dome. >> a missile defense sort of rocket defense weapons system that was able to shoot down rockets that were incoming. >> 85% accuracy at best. >> i want to talk more about this and what the u.s. government can do to bring about a two-state solution if that is the stated aim after this. with verizon. hurry in this saturday and sunday for great deals. like the lucid by lg, free. or the galaxy nexus by samsung, free. this weekend, get the best deals on the best devices on the best network. exclusively at verizon. until i show them this. the oral-b pro-health clinical brush. its pro-flex sides adjust to teeth and gums for a better clean. the pro-health clinical brush from oral-b.

[ male announcer ] it's that time of year. time for campbell's green bean casserole. you'll find the recipe at campbellskitchen.com. ♪ campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. with his wife, danielle, almost every weekend. derrell hasn't been able to visit his mom back east in a long time. [ shirley ] things are sometimes a little tight around the house. i wasn't able to go to the wedding.

[ emily jo ] since derrell couldn't get home, we decided to bring home to him and then just gave him a little bit of help finding his way. ♪ [ laughs ] [ applause ] i love you. i love you, too.

let's understand what the precipitating event here was, that's causing the current crisis. and that was, an ever-escalating number of missiles that were landing not just in israeli territory, but in areas that are populated. and there's no country on earth that would tolerate missiles

raining down on its citizens from outside its borders. so we are fully supportive of israel's right to defend itself from missiles landing on people's homes. and workplaces and potentially killing civilians. and we will continue to support israel's right to defend itself. >> that's president barack obama back on november 18th in thailand talking about escalation in gaza. what that highlights to me is the fact that the u.s.' role in the region is ostensibly, two roles. one is israel is a great ally, there's domestic political support for a strong relationship with israel. at the same time it's also supposed to be the kind of neutral arbiter, the mediator in the region that will bring this about. it seems we don't do a good job of playing those two rules. >> well those two roles have also been intentioned, they've grown more intentioned over

time. you had eight years of an administration that really gave up on trying to play the arbiter role, at which point the figure leaf kind of came away. the administration did a great job actually tactically, playing both of those roles in a way that they hadn't done at all during the first term, sending the secretary of state out to be the arbiter while the president could give the defender of israel speeches like that that's a tactical solution that doesn't get anywhere near the long-term structural problem that it isn't the same middle east that it was five years ago. what do you do instead? how do you serve the long-term interests of israel, especially when maybe many americans don't see israel's long-term interests the way and the u.s. long-term interests of having better relationships with egypt. we're not talking about the hundreds of people who died in syria over the time of gaza. so we've got a long -- the administration did a great job on the short-term, but we've got a long-term problem. that our political system won't

necessarily figure out how to let us deal with that. >> picking oun what heather is saying, i think the crisis poses an ultimate test for the obama administration in regards to the recent krans formation in the middle east. you see it in the fascinating relationship between president obama and mohammed morsi. two mag ma tist pragmatists trya way to mediate this. you see it in the backdrop of surprising riots in jordan which will cause increasing problems, you have that changing environment which you know far more about. but the arab street needs something different. these governments now need to be more responsive to their people so that is an opening for a different relationship. and the president, no american president is going to criticize israel's launching of this war. but this is an opening for a relationship with egypt, with turkey, to implement a cease-fire that will monitor

arms smuggling into gaza. that will monitor israel's relationship. overarching all of it, such a painful issue to discuss. overarching -- all of it is a history. going back at least to '67. of the united states' role, maybe, the united states' role as the enabler. as the political diplomatic economic military enabler of an israeli policy. in many ways, a younger generation is seeing israelis, that is not in the long-term benefit of the security of the country. and i would make one last point. i would urge your viewers to try and watch an israeli documentary called the "gate keepers." which is an extraordinary documentary. interviews with six former leaders of israel's internal security service, who argue yes the palestinians have committed acts of terrorism. largely due to israel's failure to deal with the political causes of the palestinian

problem. and that in relying to those causes, israel has committed acts of terrorism. these are the hardened forces who are worried about the e extension moral history. >> with regards to the conflict, the industrial complex. >> some of us resemble that comment. the point is that it seems to me the whole thing is essentially on a road to nowhere. that basically the policy after the initial confrontation essentially between the obama administration and the netanyahu government over a settlement freeze. since that moment, the american policy has basically been, we've got our hands full and we're going to kind of let it go. >> here's the fundamental conundrum that the government and the entire policy community or the consensus of the policy community in washington has faced for at least a decade.

the consensus voice has thundered forth. vital national security interest, to have a two-state peace agreement between the israelis and the palestinians, but it says we cannot want that more than the parties themselves. this isyoxymoron. this is an absurdity. this is a vital national security interest that iran doesn't have nuclear wps weapons, but we can't want that more than anybody else. is this really a vital interest of the united states. in which case we have to throw our weight behind it and tailor our policies around it with less deference to domestic -- >> what does that mean? in a concrete sense what does it look like? >> in a concrete sense, it means not letting the israelis drag us into overreacting to palestinian diplomatic moves at the u.n. it means understanding that we have a choice here that the

palestinians are facing a choice between the p.a. and the plo. their leadership in ramallah. and their strategy, versus hamas's strategy of arms struggle and we and the israelis play a huge role in determining how that goes. one of the reasons that hamas is, is may be able to spin this in a huge and lasting political victory unlike last time. unlike in 2008-2009, is the lack of contrast with the west bank and the reason for that is that western aid, american and european aid has been cut in half. and half of that american half is being held back now. so the p.a. can't even meet payroll. and then there's no functioning peace process. so what it means is, confronting people. >> steve, i want to hear how you view this politically, how you talk to your constituents about it after a break. try running four. fortunately we've got ink.

it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase.

hmm, we need a new game. ♪ that'll save the day. ♪ so will bounty select-a-size. it's the smaller powerful sheet. the only one with trap + lock technology. look! one select-a-size sheet of bounty is 50% more absorbent than a full size sheet of the leading ordinary brand. use less. with the small but powerful picker upper, bounty select-a-size. talking about the aftermath of the violence in gaza and the

cease-fire. i want to make a note about who's sitting at the table and the way the discussions happen and booking because obviously any time you talk about this topic. people look with a very careful eye, rightly, but who is the participant, who are the participants of the conversation. last week we had palestinian americans and an israeli and a member of the jewish community sort of in the broad global sense. and one of the things i want to try to communicate to folks and i think this is something that's taken me a while to come to recognize, is that americans have a stake in the conflict even if they are not palestinian, even if they are not israeli, even if they are not jewish. that we do have a stake in the conflict. and the reason we have a stake in the conflict is we are quite embedded in the conflict, in the actions of our government. i think that sometimes there's is earn kind of exhaustion that comes over american citizens. i understand exhaustion, they're killing each other again or this kind of you know, it's never

ending and i can't get in there to kind of adjudicate who's right and who's room. wrong. i think it's important for folks to recognize that the rest of the world talks about the conflict a lot. cares about the conflict. it has incredible strategic importance and also moral importance. and also importance for just if you're someone who cares deeply about our relationship with israel. a large part of the american population, evangelical christians, jews and others, how this plays out, if we're on the road to nowhere or a road to a horrible end, that's a problem, too. i want to make that point and that gets me to you. as someone who is going to run for election in two years and has to get elected. do you get a sense that there's anyone who cares about this conflict from a political standpoint other than the groups that are obviously very, very invested in it? >> i think mostly it's the groups. my jewish constituency, most of which was taken out of my

district in redistricting, cares strongly about it, understandably so. and the african-american community, which is the predominance of my district, i think it's a mixed feeling. but i think a lot of people relate with the palestinians. as being the underdogs and being like that and they see some ways, analogy to the struggle for civil rights. it's a mixed bag. but it's part of the whole agreement we've got to come to on the budget and part of the budget that some people want to have cut out is foreign aid. but we are the world's number one country. and as the world's number one country, we have certain obligations, not just for trade and commerce, but for humanitarian reasons there are things going on right now in goma where we need to be involved in a humanitarian in a major way, because what's happening there is awful. we have to be involved. it affects the whole middle east. i've traveled through the middle east and all the leaders there say what happens between israel and the palestinians will determine the rest of the middle east relationships to israel. which is the potential for war.

>> heather i'm curious, how much the u.s. posture matters. if i'm over-interpreting how much the u.s. posture matters. >> i was in the clinton state department, the clinton white house the last time there was a serious major effort to reach a deal that fell apart at the end. the thing i would say to you, we do not matter as much as we did in 1999. we are not the only dynamic that determines whether there is peace or war between israel and the palestinians, i would push back a little bit on what hussein said. while not taking away from u.s. responsibility. you put up those numbers at the beginning of the show. almost half the israeli population things it did didn't go far enough. people in the region are disgusted with their government options, it's not at all clear to me that either side would have the legitimacy to make a peace deal stick if we somehow

did as you suggested as got engaged and managed to force the leaderships to get one. >> there's an institutional set-up. that the u.s. government says we're for a two-state solution. that's always the official policy. and then there's a set of ngos and institutions and groups that say they're from a two-step solution. apec. everything is for a two-state solution. there's no constituency for an actual two-state solution. >> nsa not true. there's a constituency for it and there continues to be among both israelis and palestinians, they don't see their own government institutions or frankly our government institutions being able to get there. so if you want to fix it, what you have to do is deal with the legitimacy problem and the institution instead of saying let's go to final status negotiations tomorrow. >> there are also international efforts over the years. not just the idea that the u.s. is number one i think is the wrong approach with all due respect. because i think part of the

problem of the states foreign policy. should be first among many. but if you don't build regional power and international security institutions it's very difficult to build a more peaceful world. there have been efforts like the quartet. the united states is not the only one who should be playing a role in the region. we're forgetting another thing. the tragedy is it seems to me, you have at this moment on the israeli political stage, one of the most hard-right governments in israeli history. if you had a different government. one that didn't expand settlements as vice president biden was landing in the country or have one in which benjamin netanyahu is not the most right wing. what israelis should do to gaza, flatten it like the united states flattened hiroshima. or the understanding and i'm sad about this, because i go to russia a lot, that the russian

who is come to israel like lieberman have driven the country even further to the right. working at a mass zeen as i do that fought for the creation of the state of israel, pushed president truman who didn't want to the care for israel, there are many jews in this country whose voices aren't being heard. because apec remains the right wing likud voice. a new group j street which first endorsed congressman cohen. you need a sense of a range of israeli voices which we're not hearing now in israel because of nationalism. >> because people hunker down. >> there are people like norm shazeff who was here last week they want a different kind of israel and they're trying to fight for that moral quarter. >> no longer the case in the new

post era after we take a break. and we got onesies. sometimes miracles get messy. so we use tide free. no perfumes or dyes for her delicate skin. brad. not it. not it. just kidding. that's our tide. what's yours?

there's a certain theory that i think popular in washington, d.c. foreign policy circles. i was never clear on whether it was roothood in reality. but basically the theory went like this. you know, dictators in the middle east and the arab world essentially use the palestinian conflict as this kind of proxy pressure release valve in which the anger at their own injustices and tyranny is focused on there. and now in the midst of the arab spring and in the midst of the great upheaval, that the sal yens of this as the central issue in the region has declined and everyone can muddle along, fighting their own battles, in the case of syria, where 40,000 civilians have been killed. do you think the salience has diminished? >> both are true at the same time. in other words this issue has

been cynically exploited by virtually ever arab government. but that doesn't mean that it isn't the issue that arabs across the board. across generations, across jenders, religions, across geographic space, across class lines care about the most -- it's the prism of pain through which they view international relations, it is true that the arab spring has focused attention on egypt and libya and on syria and the palestinian issue hasn't been sort of dominatele the front pages of the arab newspapers the way that it has. but that doesn't mean that it isn't the great back story. that it isn't the fundamental prism that arabs view their relationship with the rest of the world with the west, the united states with the global order. it's still is. so while it recedes sometimes as the most urgent issue, it never goes away as the most important one. in the arab mentality. >> heather, if you could wave a

magic wand and create some magical space in which the u.s. could do whatever, forget political constraints domestically, what would you want to see the obama administration do if the obama administration is committed to a two-state solution if we're committed to a genuine peace process that is heading towards some end point, what would you like to see the obama administration do in its second term? >> put in the resources to build real legitimate palestinian popular government. that would be an irresistible partner and that is both really doing the things and not necessarily with abbas by the way. but helping palestinians work through who's the successor to abbas in the p.a., who is legitimate. and talk to hamas. not work with hamas, not necessarily hug hamas, but talk to hamas. i don't think there's a magic wand you can wave that solves the israeli side. >> you think the american government should be talking to hamas? >> yes. >> so did the former security

leaders. >> there's quite a constituency -- >> no one has mentioned iran. because there is a view that in some ways what we've seen in the last weeks, as a dry run. both in the sense of testing the military equipment, testing the anti-missile facilities, but also, in netanyahu testing obama and i think what we've seen is a president pushing back. we don't know the full story. but the back channel here is that the president said to the israelis -- no deployment of land forces. and in that, perhaps is a signal that there may be a toughness now that president obama is re-elected on iran. that's the great conflagration in the middle east we want to avoitd. >> iran's the great problem. one of the ways to resolve it is to have allies in the middle east. and by dealing with the issue you might help israel with iran. this is more for israel's benefit, the two-state solution, than it is for the palestinians.

>> on both of those issues, boex and you characterized his attitude correctly. obama had great support from within the israeli defensive security establishment. they do not agree with netanyahu. >> we've seen that openly. >> they didn't agree with the idea of a ground invasion. there's a split between the demagoguic politicians, that's something that the president can work with. it's also by the way, the israeli opposition, if it ever got its act together could use and has not. >> the power grab in egypt and what that means for u.s. policy in the region, next. ♪ [ male announcer ] jill and her mouth have lived a great life. but she has some dental issues she's not happy about. so i introduced jill to crest pro-health for life. selected for people over 50. pro-health for life is a toothpaste that defends against tender, inflamed gums, sensitivity and weak enamel.

conditions people over 50 experience. crest pro-health for life. so jill can keep living the good life. crest. life opens up when you do.

customer erin swensoniving bought so, i'm happy. today. sales go up... i'm happy. it went out today... i'm happy. what if she's not home? (together) she won't be happy. use ups! she can get a text alert, reroute... even reschedule her package. it's ups my choice. are you happy? i'm happy. i'm happy. i'm happy. i'm happy. i'm happy. happy. happy. happy. happy. (together) happy. i love logistics. we've been talking about the role the u.s. can and ought to play in the changing middle east. for decades, the main arab conduit through which the u.s. has conducted policy in the middle east has been egypt. for most of the time leaders could rely on an unshakeable l

al ally, hosni mubarak who was ousted in 2011 and the man who replaced him, egypt's first democratically-elected president, mohammed morsi has remained largely a mystery. as he emerges onto the world stage, amid the crisis in gaza, mohammed morsi is confounding all of those expectations and turning out to be one of the most fascinating political figures in the world. he rose to power almost accidentally as a back-up to the muslim brotherhood. earning morsi the nickname, spare tire. he's navigated egypt's politics with surprising safy. overcoming the opposition of egypt's military rulers who had sought to thwart the influence of the muslim brotherhood. morsi seemed to confirm the worst fears of some in the west

when he dispatched his prime minister to the region. a week later, moyersi proved instrumental in brokering a cease-fire, earning glowing praise from none other than secretary of state hillary clinton. >> i want to thank president morsi for his personal leadership to deescalate the situation in gaza and end the violence this is a critical moment for the region. egypt's new government is assuming the responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone of regional stability and peace. morsi surprised even the most cynical observers of middle east politics, was said to have impressed president obama with his pragmatism and candor. the next day, morsi turned around and unilaterally claimed for himself virtually unlimited powers in egypt's government. declaring himself above judicial review and insulating the body that is writing egypt's constitution, which critics fear is dominated by islamists from

any sort of challenge. morsi declared that the president can issue any decision or measure to protect the revolution and that quote the constitutional declarations, decisions and laws issued by the president are final and not subject to appeal. morsi insists the powers are only temporary and will expire when a new constitution is drafted. ed state department, which had just openly praised morsi responded delicately. saying the decree raises concerns and calls for all parties to work together. morsi's critics were less tame. protesters declared the revolution a jeopardy. and muhammed elbaradei said morsi. morsi usurped all state powers and appointed himself egypt's new pharaoh. a major blow to the revolution. i want to talk about those consequences right after this. e?

challenge the need for such heavy measures with olay. regenerist micro-sculpting serum for firmer skin in 5 days. pretty heavy lifting for such a lightweight. [ female announcer ] olay regenerist. for such a lightweight. is bigger than we think ... sometimelike the flu.fer from with aches, fever and chills- the flu's a really big deal. so why treat it like it's a little cold? there's something that works differently than over-the-counter remedies. prescription tamiflu attacks the flu virus at its source. so don't wait. call your doctor right away. tamiflu is prescription medicine for treating the flu in adults and children one year and older whose flu symptoms started within the last two days. before taking tamiflu tell your doctor if you're pregnant, nursing. have serious health conditions, or take other medicines. if you develop an allergic reaction, a severe rash, or signs of unusual behavior, stop taking tamiflu and call your doctor immediately. children and adolescents in particular may be at an increased risk of seizures, confusion

or abnormal behavior. the most common side effects are mild to moderate nausea and vomiting. the flu comes on fast, so ask your doctor about tamiflu. prescription for flu. ♪ don't know what i'd do ♪ i'd have nothing to prove ♪ i'd have nothing to lose [ male announcer ] zales is the diamond store. take an extra 10 percent off online purchases all day monday.

we're talking about mohammed morsi, the leader of egypt who gave a somewhat stunning declaration this week. giving to himself nearly limitless power and it's called uprisings in tahrir square. tariq, the context of this. i find the process by which politics is negotiated in the absence of essentially constitutional law fascinating, because right now egypt is operating which there is no letter of the law of what the constraints on the state are, am i correct?

>> you're sort of correct. muhammad morsi gets to decide what the law is. he's the executive and the legislature in egypt. so he gets to issue amendments to the temporary constitution that governs egypt, and that's what he's done so far. there are a bunch of people that are supposed to be writing a more permanent charter, but they've been selected by an islamist dominated parliament that's now dissolved. so the liberals are feeling that the constitution writing process is not going in the direction that will produce something that all egyptians want. so they have found that their closest ally in the apparatus of the state is this judiciary. so the judiciary has taken steps through this post revolutionary period to limit morsi's power and his declaration is basically an attempt to say listen, stop this, i'm in charge, and i'm going to determine how the process goes from here on out.

>> you've done your academic work on the muslim brotherhood. my sense is that you've spent a lot of time there and met morsi. >> a bunch of times. >> has morsi's development as a leader -- to me, there's a putinesque quality. putin has proven quite vigilant in suppressing dissent. i wonder if that seems like a noteworthy parallel or there's differences important to understand. >> we're talking now about mohammed morsi and not the muslim brotherhood. lots of people say, this proves that political islam is incompatible with democracy. no, this proves that morsi is acting the way egyptian presidents have acted for 60 years. so there's something clearly

about this institution of the presidency that endows those who occupy it with this feeling that they should be running the show. >> but here's the difference. while these kinds of decisions could be made by mubarak and sadat, this time what you're seeing is precisely what we want to see. these important issues about the role of government in society and the role of religion are being had for the first time and that's a huge step for the kind of hopefully democratic system we want to see in egypt. >> this can't be viewed as a positive development, because it has two key features. article two, which says there's no review, there's no check and

balance, no judicial review, no court has any jurisdiction over any decision morsi makes or has made since he came to office. and any decision made against his decisions are annulled. and worse, the real meat and potatoes, in the public discourse it's all about the prosecutor general and who is in charge. and it's being packaged that way. the meat and potatoes of this is article six, which says the president may take any measure necessary to defend the country and the goals of the revolution. what it means is anything. he can do anything. >> when you hear a phrase like take whatever actions to defend the revolution -- >> he's more than mubarak, he's more than a dictator, his word is law. >> how does he enforce this?

up like the mubarak regime where the way you enforce it is by shooting everybody, this is an option he doesn't have. >> is that true, tariq? are the security forces, the military and the security forces,ry are slightly different things, are they in his corner enough? >> certainly the military is -- i don't know if the military is in his corner or not. they've been silent so far. we know that the police have been doing his bidding over the last couple of days and it's very distressing to us who saw all the political forces unite to end police brutality. i would say one thing that we should keep in mind. look at morsi's declaration. one thing he didn't do is he didn't say, i am resurrecting the parliament that this judiciary dissolved. in fact, his spokesman said they're not going to do that. and that to me further confirms the notion that this is about

him consolidating the power of the presidency and not about bringing back -- >> i want to hear your thoughts how the use navigates this treacherous terrain. that after this break.

from new york, i'm chris hayes. back with my panel. we're talking about the remarkable events in egypt, which continues to be one of the most interesting places on the globe politically, because it is the intense most revolutionary environment. it was one of the most eventful weeks in egypt since the

revolution. and in the region because of it. and mohammed morsi was part of sort of along with hillary clinton, was doing this kind of shuttle diplomacy around negotiating a cease-fire with the israelis and hamas in gaza. the cease-fire makes egypt the enforcer of the agreement, quite remarkably. egypt shall receive assurances from each party, each party shall commit itself not to breach. >> so they didn't negotiate with each other. each one negotiated with egypt. >> it does sort of call to mind the central role that the mubarak regime played in this and we're essentially coming out of this week which the combination of that and morsi declaring himself these broad powers looks like a re-creation

of the american-mubarak relationship. >> this goes back to something you said. it's a re-creation of the imperial egypt, or the pharaohnic egypt if you want to use a cliche. egypt wants to play that role and has been trying to play that role unsuccessfully with respect to syria and trying to recapture in diplomacy what the revolution did recapture in the arab popular imagination. so this is a place where u.s. interests, morsi and israeli interests, because you have some of the israeli right who say great, let's make gaza egypt's problem forever. so there's a funny way that everybody's power dynamic goes the same way here. >> of course, the big dissenter are the people in the streets of tahrir square. >> this goes back to your putin

question and what i thought of, the point is morsi is putin, he's not stalin. so this isn't mubarak. we're not going to back to mubarak, but we're not proceeding to british style constitutional style democracy and american policy will have to juggle both things. >> number one, i thought it was inevitable and saturday before last, i predicted that egypt would play this role, because everybody would need egypt to play this role and egypt would want to go back to praying this role, because egypt changed ceos and they have a ceo with a new idealology, but it has the same options and challenges. one of the crucial things is to be the mediator between hamas and israel and not to get sucked back into gaza, to be the gau gaurnentor of the arrangement

but not the custodian. the other thing about this decree i want to mention, which is a slight of hand i think that is being used to sugar the bitter pill for the egyptians is they're being assured this is all temporary. it's until there is a new constitution and until and until. however, temporary is always permanent. every single arab slate, including mubarak's egypt, but every arab state that oppresses people uses temporary laws. hitler never suspended the constitution. he never abrogated it. he suspended it for four years until the soviet army overran berlin. so temporary is permanent. >> do you think that's the right? >> in all the cases, there is a marriage between the apparatus

and the dictator. in other words, you have the army ready to crack heads in people didn't like your temporary situation. >> and we should all remember the context. the security forces, their number one enemy for four years was the muslim brotherhood. morsi did time in prison. they were tortured. the security forces have an institutional memory of essentially finding, spying on, and imprisoning and beating the same people who are now running the state. >> the top two generals in the army are beholden to him. they owe him something. >> we're confusing a couple of things. first of all, the army is different from the security apparatus. it's serving the presidency. we see them doing that right now. what i'm talking about is that we do not know that he has the army behind him. so in other words, and -- >> it was the army's defection from mubarak. >> why did they defect from mubarak? the deal between the dictator

and the army is, look, you let us do your thing and we'll let you do your thing, as long as the situation doesn't get out of hand. the situation got out of hand and the army came and said we're protecting the revolution. no reason something like that couldn't happen again. >> as long as it doesn't jeopardize the funding. one of the many reasons we shouldn't exaggerate to much what this decree is going to do is because of the conversation i had with a revolutionary very early on in this process. i said look, are you afraid that with the military still in charge that we're going to go right back to the same kind of dictatorial process that egypt had for 40 years? she said i'm not afraid of that, because we know the way back to tahrir square. it was only a year ago that egypt was an oppressive dictatorship. the competing interests in the post revolutionary egypt that

are playing themselves out, both on the streets, in the military, in the government, we're a long ways from a place where we can throw in the towel and say the entire democratic process was a waste of time. what we're seeing is what we want to see. >> here's the most fascinating thing to me. in the context of the u.s. policy post 9/11, which has been the war on terror, war in afghanistan, war in iraq, and now special forces operations and drone strikes in probably six different countries, all of which have muslim majorities or islamist regimes. all of that context, we are now finding ourselves with our possible chief ally in the region other than israel being the first democratically elected president of the muslim brotherhood, and there being

this fear amongst people, chris chaps in egypt that now america is tilting towards a islamist posture. after the ten years that we've just had, it's a remarkable turn of events to me given the context of what the war on terror looked like and how that was understood in the broad clash of civilizations language you've written about. >> it is the logic of power, and second, the crazy thing about it is both things are happening at the same time, that this administration is pragmatic enough to work with folks legitimately elected. we have -- i mean, this is a fundamental brokenness in our political system that will prevent us from being

effective -- >> hold those thoughts. we're going to take a break. with verizon. hurry in this saturday and sunday for great deals. like the lucid by lg, free. or the galaxy nexus by samsung, free. this weekend, get the best deals on the best devices on the best network. exclusively at verizon. a great clean doesn't have to take longer. i'm done. [ female announcer ] unlike sprays and dust rags, swiffer 360 dusters extender can clean hard to reach places in less time. swiffer. great clean in less time. or your money back.

but some things never get old... marie callender's dutch apple pie with fresh fuji apples and a crust made from scratch... it makes home at the holidays even sweeter. marie callender's. it's time to savor. you can stay in and share something... ♪ ♪ ...or you can get out there with your friends and actually share something. ♪ the lexus december to remember sales event is on, offering some of our best values of the year. this is the pursuit of perfection.

♪ in a world where ♪ there is so much to see ♪ there's still no other place ♪ that i would rather, rather ♪ rather, rather be ♪ [ male announcer ] dip into sabra hummus and discover a little taste of the world. enjoy sabra dips. adventure awaits.

america respects the right of all peaceful and law abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. and we will welcome all elected peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people. this last point is important, because there are some who advocate for democracy, only when they're out of power. once in power, they're ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. >> the sort of prophetic statement by the president in his cairo speech of june 2009. but muslim brotherhood was a huge agitator for opening up the

system, right, and then they fought the regime and fought for democratic rights. >> partly. >> but they were partners with secular liberals and others to open up the regime. and now we find them in this position. i'm curious, what misunderstandings do you think we have about what the muslim brotherhood is that kind of guide our policy as we enter this new -- >> that's a great question. i think one thing we constantly see is we think of this group as tightly organized. if you want to know when to discount a particularly story on the muslim brotherhood. you'll find a phrase, the muslim brotherhood thinks or believes. this is a very diverse organization. people will talk to the fact that on the english website they say one thing, on the arabic website they say another. they are clearly rallying behind

the president in this time because he's one of their own. but to come back to a question you asked earlier, which was about why is it that people in egypt feel that the muslim brotherhood now is in bed with the americans, how could they think this? it's as much about what people think about america as what it is what they think about the muslim brotherhood. every promise that the brotherhood made after the revolution, they've actually broken. they've given some good reasons for it. they said they wouldn't run for the presidency. they ran for the presidency. they said they were only going to one for a third of the seats in parliament. they ran for the whole thing. >> the thing about politics is that it has the ability to both moderate radical ideologies and the ability to call out the extremes in a sense. >> sometimes. >> for the first time these guys

have an opportunity to present their ideas to the public. they swept the parliament, not so much because of their ideas but because for many years they were the only vibrant alternative. they were seen as incorruptible. but now we know the way that politics can corrupt, and people are starting to realize that what is governing egypt is now different interests, not so much idealologies. >> that's true, except also true is that politics can empower ide idealogues and while it's true the muslim brotherhood is diverse, and the guy that runs their tweeter feed is very moderate compared to their supreme lead, and somewhere in between is morsi. so there is a range, but they have a majority few of what

politics looks like. they don't understand individual rights and rights of citizenship at all. they understand the right of the majority to rule. >> i want to thank my panel. that was a great discussion. thank you so much. the bizarre and absurd attack on susan rice, right after this. hey sis, it's so great to see you. you, too! oh, cloudy glasses. you didn't have to come over! actually, honey, i think i did... oh? you did? whoa, ladies, easy. hi. cascade kitchen counselor. we can help avoid this with cascade complete pacs. over time, the other premium pac can leave cloudy, hard water deposits, but cascade complete pacs help leave glasses sparkling. shiny! too bad it doesn't work on windows. okay, i'm outta here. more dishwasher brands in north america recommend cascade.

now is a good time to think about your options. are you looking for a plan that really meets your needs and your budget? as you probably know, medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand medicare and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with this type of plan, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist.

there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, all medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. if you're thinking about your options, call today. when you call, request your free decision guide. and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that may be right for you. o0 c1

try running four.ning a restaurant is hard, fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase. if you asked me a couple of months ago to guess the obama administration official who republicans would target next, i could have given you a dozen names, but u.n. ambassador susan rice would not have been one of them. she is from the perspective of main stream american foreign policy one of the least controversial figures in this administration. rice was a scholar at 28 years

old. she joined bill clinton's security council and became the youngest ever assistant secretary of state. and in january of 2009, she was unanimously confirmed by the senate as a united states ambassador to the united nations. during her almost four years on the job, she's earned bipartisan praise for pursuing u.s. interests. "new york times" reports that white house aides say she's favored by president obama to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. but rice's record doing her job doesn't seem to matter much to senator john mccain. what matters is that rice went on television in the days after the attack in libya that killed the ambassador and three other americans and repeated the information the cia provided at the time. >> susan rice should have known better, and if she didn't know better, she's not qualified. she has a lot of explaining to

do. besides not being very bright, i will do everything in my power to block her from being the united states secretary of state. >> i suppose i understand the republicans feel the administration hasn't paid a high political price for the benghazi attack, but it seems a stretch that rice's performance on a few sunday shows should disqualify her from another job in the administration. the president addressed this issue after he was re-elected. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch

her reputation is outrageous. >> susan rice spoke up in defense of herself the day before thanksgiving. >> when discussing the attacks against our facilities in benghazi, i relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. i made clear that the information was preliminary, and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers. >> republicans appear to show no sign of moving on, setting up what is likely to be a vicious confirmation table. all right, yi'm not trying to - i'm being honest here, i don't

quite get the susan rice focus. you can say, diplomatic security services, the people that turned down the funding request, you can say hillary clinton at the state department, because that's ultimately who is responsible. there are people that i can understand the anger or outrage being directed at. but susan rice doesn't make very much sense to me as a target. so explain that to me. >> we now know because of the closed hearings from david petraeus that the intelligence said it was a terrorist attack. we know that the original classified talking points, not talking points but classified information that went to the presidential daily briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. and then the up classified talking points gave a very different impression. the person who delivered those talking points was susan rice. she said something republicans believe wasn't true.

>> i don't follow that logic. why would she know it wasn't true? and second of all -- >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right, but the point is, intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of intelligence can be both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, and so if you were given one set of talking points that are classified and then a litter iteration that are unclassified, do you go back to the cia and say you guys are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here, and there are reasons why you would want to obscure the fact that we would know who the terrorists were, if there was -- >> which is petraeus' argument. >> i don't necessarily buy that either. but the point being at the time, the intelligence community knew this was a terrorist attack with groups that had links to al

qaeda. what susan rice said, because the unclassified version was very different, she was -- she delivered that information that was not -- >> so she could pay the price? >> it's not for me to talk for republicans, but that's the argument. >> two points about that. first, it isn't that the intelligence community knew that was their best advice at that moment. and things always change and any other crisis that hadn't happened in the middle of an election. and, this is the key thing, chris, an election which the republicans were trying very hard to grab any foothold they can they could to take away the president's advantage on national security. ambassador rice was the percent out two weeks before an election, so they went after her for that reason. >> secretary clinton almost never does sunday shows and it was the u.n. general assembly that week.

so she was the person -- it w wasn't like, let's go to the susan rice playbook. >> they didn't go after secretary clinton, even though the state department is her responsibility and they didn't go after david petraeus, but they went after somebody who, in a certain sector of the public mind, is more immediately reminiscent of president obama and doesn't have the independent political following. >> if you want to make this point, make it explicitly. >> it's a lot easier to go after a young, black woman than somebody that is the most popular politician in the united states or a four-star general. >> especially if you're from arizona. the election is over. they need to get over benghazi. they wouldn't have said this about somebody -- he says she's

not smart? that's ridiculous. she went to stanford. that's not bad. >> in all due respect, she was saying if she didn't know what she was saying was wrong, that was a rhetorical device. >> he said she wasn't very smart. >> the larger point is one that leather raised, which is that the republicans, beginning with romney and ryan, have tried to attack president obama's foreign policy. susan rice became a proxy that the light foot print, weakness, the apology tour, which is fantastical. >> there's two arguments on the table. one is that rice is being targeted because she's -- her race. >> easy. >> she is a less formidable target, the criticism of the administration has been

essentially cynical and politically motivated. >> those are not mutually exclusive. >> they're not. but if it was cynical, they would have dropped it the day after the election. respond to that after we take a break. i've been coloring liz's hair for years. but lately she's been coming in with less gray than usual. what's she up to? [ female announcer ] root touch-up by nice'n easy has the most shade choices, designed to match even salon color in just 10 minutes. with root touch-up, all they see is you.

this reduced sodium soup says it may help lower cholesterol, how does it work? you just have to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.

he loves risk. but whether he's climbing everest, scuba diving the great barrier reef with sharks, or jumping into the market, he goes with people he trusts, which is why he trades with a company

that doesn't nickel and dime him with hidden fees. so he can worry about other things, like what the market is doing and being ready, no matter what happens, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense, from td ameritrade. we're talking about susan rice in the wake of appearance on several sunday shows and the information that the cia prov e provided her in regards to the attacks in benghazi. there's something else you wanted to say. >> i think the talking points are less important. if you want to know the original sin of benghazi, it was trusting something called the february 17 martyr's brigade with the security of a cia base/diplomatic consulate.

that mistake is because there was regime change in libya facilitated by nato and u.s. air force. and there was no reconstruction and no foot prints on the ground. and there are good reasons for not having a military force post revolution in libya because you don't have a government that would ask for them. but one of the downsides is that you entrust militias and those who don't have u.s. interest with security of u.s. facilities. >> one thing that's lost is that it was ambassador stevens who was in charge of asking what kind of security he needed. one thing that's lost in so much of this is that we haven't asked what risk should our diplomatics take. lost in this are so many substantive conversations that needs to be have. >> two points here. dss is not very large and not

particularly well funded and doesn't have that many people. b, the way that we squared this circle in the last is we hired black water. that's what we did. after the massacre and all the problems -- >> we still hired black water, by the way. >> but in libya, it was clear that was going to be untenable. that private security forces were going to be untenable, and that's part of -- >> there's a strong argument, this is a democratically elected government in the arab world that would be very pro american. it makes sense to want to wait for that government to form and have a formal agreement with them. >> i want to turn our attention to susan rice herself. the context for this is the idea she's going to be nominated to be secretary of state. that's what everyone is expecting. the irony, of course, is that on

the sort of interventionist, noninterventionist axis of foreign policy, susan rice is probably closer to john mccain. here is famed interventionist, the now late christopher hitchens, saying in 2008 that he thinks the world of susan rice. check it out. >> susan rice should have been -- has a long track record arguing for political and humanitarian interventionism, the sort many of us have advocated in darfour. she doesn't carry any baggage. >> hitch went for obama in 2008 because of the promise of more war in pakistan.

and in that sense it doesn't surprise me. i have a memory of susan rice in the '90s standing in southern sudan saying there is slavery here, doing so many such a way that guarantied preliminary efforts to reach out to the government of khartoum. >> i think mccain has gotten a pass. he's a trigger happy hawk. susan rice represents this liberal interventionist wing, which i think is very problematic and has being militarized in ways we saw in libya. i hope that in any confirmation hearing, whether it's susan rice or john kerry, there will be questions raised about a new internationalism. one that is not a neoliberal or liberal interventionism that isn't about bombs, bases, intervention. but about rebuilding america's relationship with the world and dealing with the major problems of our time, like climate crisis, nuclear proliferation,

hunger and how america can lead a global economic recovery. these are issues liberal interventionism has not done a good job dealing with. >> the trouble with that, though, is that we actually don't have the money as a result of the choices of the people who would be voting to confirm or not confirm ambassador rice. if you only have the money for the military solution because the pentagon is well funded and your regional commander has much more ability to go out and act on behalf of the u.s. than the ambassador does. so i agree with your critique, but the way to get to the source of the critique is not that susan rice doesn't understand, but it's to follow the money and -- >> but should we rethink our priorities as to where the money goes. the cuts to the state department, the balance between defense and state, diplomacy and military, are way off in our

country. >> i think the issue with susan rice and will and should she be confirmed? i think the republicans would rather have john kerry give them a chance to get the massachusetts seat. but the bottom line is confirmation, yeah, you're supposed to tell the truth and if you don't, that's bad, no question. but there ought to be like instant replay. you have to have overwhelming evidence to overrule it, even when the referee is wrong. there has to be overwhelming evidence to not support the president's nomination. >> we have an amazing bit of tape of john mccain making a somewhat similar argument a few years back. we'll show you that after this break. black friday prices are still here. instore and online, right now. where prices have been cut, chopped, and sanded... ...on the most powerful tools that cut... ...chop... ...and sand. so we, or somebody on our list, can do the same. more saving. more doing.

that's the power of the home depot. get a special buy on a ryobi 2 piece lithium ion kit for just $99.

i got your campbell's chunky soup. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. the giants don't have a mascot! ohhh! eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. hmmm. for giant hunger! thanks mom! see ya! whoaa...oops! mom? i'm ok. grandma? hi sweetie! she operates the head. [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. i wonder why we're starting this new congress with a protracted debate with a

foregone conclusion. we need to move on. the people of the united states made their choice last november, and they expect their elected officials to govern accordingly. when president clinton was re-elected, i didn't share the policy views of some of the officials he nominated. but i don't recall going through protracted battles like this. we all have varying policy views, but the president, in my view, has a clear right to put into place the team that he believes will serve him best. >> that's john mccain in 2005, pending the nomination of condoleezza rice for secretary of state. condoleezza rice, of course, at that point who had been part of the national security team that had brought about the iraq war and the -- on the argument about weapons of mass destruction being present. so a little bit of a different tune from him. >> consistency being the

hobgoblin. >> i'm not trying to bar him from serving as senator. part of my question, how much these appointments matter. it seems to me like american foreign policy is so overdetermined by this set of interests that it doesn't -- there's differences between the two parties, but in the grand scheme of things, overtime they've been crowded out over overwhelmed by the ways which they agree in terms of pursuing american foreign policy interest. given that context, whether this secretary of state or that secretary of state matters much for what the state does. >> chris, it matters enormously at the margins, which means it matters in a second term when a president is thinking legacy. your secretary of state is going to determine for you in many cases which of the problems you take on. and at the margins, how

successful are you going to be. >> does it matter, though? this is a genuine question. the abilities of that person who has that role, does it matter how good they are at doing that thing in resolving these conflicts or projecting u.s. power or whatever it is? >> so second clinton term, arguably you couldn't have had kosovo and wouldn't have ended as good as it did without madeiline albright. so yeah, it does -- on the one hand, increasingly the president is his own secretary of state and we're seeing that as a bipartisan trend. also, i take issue a little bit with the idea, not so much that american foreign policy isn't overdetermined, but there's an important difference in underlying world view at the dawn of the 21st century, are we

still trying to find new ways to been a hedgemon, and that's a huge difference and in that sense matters enormously who is out there, putting that face on the relationship. does it matter who your producers or? >> yes, it does matter. yes. >> i think it matters a great deal. what the secretary of state chooses to talk about, chooses to focus on, the people he or she chooses to appoint, matter a great deal in the details of policy. if you're asking a broader question, like there are these interests and -- >> you found me out. >> in that sense, i suppose not. there is in some ways, it's a narrow band. but the details matter a great deal. >> i think it's a way too narrow band. i do think there are interests that are determining our foreign policy. again, i come back to the

fundamental issue, which is we do need to be less militaristic in our approach to the world, we need to cultivate regional power sources and find a way to work with the world, particularly this country as you know in the next period will be so limited financially. we should lead a global economic recovery. that should be our mission and invest in the world and in our country. i don't think americans want a messinanic nation building -- >> what you should know for the "newsweek" ahead, coming up next. [ female announcer ] for everything your face has to face. face it with puffs facial tissues. puffs has air-fluffed pillows for 40% more cushiony thickness. face every day with puffs softness. but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now i can be in the scene. advair is clinically proven to help

significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. if you're still having difficulty breathing, ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. get your first full prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com.

in just a moment, what we should know for the news week ahead. but first, a quick update of a story from last weekend. my criticism of governor cuomo got quite a bit of attention. in fact, he faced a number of questions from reporters about

criticism from the left, including my own. and in an interview on a radio show, cuomo responded this way. >> i would like to see a little less hyper partisan rhetoric and a little more substantive rhetoric on issues and positions and what people would actually do. all this talk. where are people on teacher evaluations? where are people on stop and frisk, marijuana, where are they on storm relief, where are they on the budget? why don't we have a discussion about issues and progress and what's good for the people as opposed to just hyperpartisan rhetoric? >> well, i agree. if the governor wants to see more substantive rhetoric, he's welcome to come on any time. i do not care about a senate democratic majority, because i care about the new york state democratic party, which has been

a mess for as long as i remember. i care because i care about a higher minimum wage, and other issues, that have essentially no chance of passing if republicans control the senate but do have a shot if democrats control it. my point is that i'm sure a political mind as sharp as the governors recognizes that, as well. but according to "the new york times," as of this week, more than two weeks after the election, we don't know which party has won the majority in the senate. 63 seats were up for grabs. one democrat decided to vote with the republicans. two seats are undecided. democrat also need to win both of them to gain the majority. they are leading in one of those races and republicans are leading in the other. it is a pending disaster. so what should you know for the week coming up? we should keep in mind that poverty, hunger and deprivation,

take our current brought. another example of the extreme weather we are experiencing in the onset of global climate change. the government has less food to donate to food banks. 15 million americans live in hunger or on the edge of it. and you should know the consequences of our actions are felt most acutely by those most vulnerable. as washington debates about the fiscal curb, the spending cuts leveraged and traded in the abstract have real implications in the particular. unemployment funding is set to expire at the end of this year, meaning 2 million americans will lose unemployment insurance. republicans have have you believe that $291 a week keeps the unemployed from finding

work, but a new report estimates that last year, unemployment insurance kept 2.3 million americans out of poverty, including 620,000 children. when you think about fiscal cliffs, there's known worse than the fall into poverty. you should know the perils of corporate journalism, the most powerful con -- you should know that principal journalists let their audience know when something is afoot. that's what happened in maine when an anchor team resigned on air. >> on behalf of cindy and me, we have loved every moment bringing the news to you and coming into the homes with your stories and the community and state and some recent developments have come to our attention and departing together is the best action we can take.

>> they declined to offer specifics, but said "i just wanted them to know i was being honest and ethical as a journalist and there were times when i wasn't able to do that." want to find out what you guys think our audience should know? >> the first thing is that 98% of the american should have tax relief and democrats and republicans, the president and house and senate agree on that. it's the 2% we don't agree on, and the republicans could hold up tax release for 98% of americans. i think the public also needs to know that what's happening in the congo is a humanitarian crisis, almost going to be at the tipping point and it's one of the most desperate places in the world and these people in camps are on the road and there will be great death and disease there and we need to contribute to the red cross and others to help the people in goma and in

the eastern congo and that the grizzlies are the best team in basketball. >> you really touched all the bases there. katrina? >> people need to know we have come one step closer to ending the ineffective and inhumane drug wars in this country with the initiatives that passed in washington and colorado on november 6. al also, the war on drugs affects disproportionately african-americans and latinos and it's failed. >> what they're setting up there, the regulatory system -- >> people should know as the justice department and cia write a policy that was supposed to endoris the drone targeting,

china has developed their own military drones they unveiled this week. so it's not just america and israel anymore. >> heather? >> people should know as we go back to the fiscal cliff, pentagon contractors and ceos can ride them out for as much as six months. up like military families, regular american families -- people should know that if the washington wizards do not break their losing streak, my 8-year-old is coming down to protest. >> the memphis grizzlies are doing well. and you should know the staff in the makeup room here, saturday and sunday mornings do an incredible job and i stupidly omitted them from my thanks yesterday. so i want to give them a special shoutout today. they make me look presentable, which is no small feat.

i want to thank my againsts. come back any time. thank you all. i learned a lot from today's show. we'll be back next weekend, saturday and sunday at 8:00 eastern time. i'm really excited. our againsts will include dan malloy. he's a rising start in the democratic party, has put together deals, and i'm excited to talk to him. we will see you next week here on "up." i love how clean and healthy my mouth is right now. i wish i could keep it this way. [ male announcer ] now you can. with the crest pro-health clinical line. used together, they help keep your teeth 97% as clean as a dental cleaning.

the toothpaste actually reduces plaque. and the rinse reaches all areas and is clinically proven to help prevent plaque regrowth. crest pro-health clinical line. together, they help keep your teeth 97% as clean as a dental cleaning. crest. life opens up when you do.

since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪

damage on a massive scale. huge structures reduced to rubble in seconds. crashing to the ground. >> i've never seen anything like this before. it's terrifying. >> trains demolish trucks in their path. >> i was stunned. i though, what is he doing? don't take a chance like that. >> houses crumble. >> and i had never seen anything like that before. >> wow. >> a factory erupts.